The Shotgun Blog
« The Obama campaign gets creepier | Main | A test to see which presidential candidate you have most in common with »
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Noam Chomsky: Canadian Human Rights Commission is "outrageous"
Last week, I posted Harvard psychology professor and Canadian Steven Pinker's thoughts on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Pinker thought they were "atrocious" and was familiar with the Mark Steyn/Maclean's magazine case.
Just now, I'm in the middle of a longer discussion with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky--ranging from what he means by "libertarianism" and what he thinks of Robert Nozick, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand to his books being banned recently by the South Korean military (they harm the "military's mental power"). But he did share his thoughts on section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act with me, and I thought I'd pass that along.
By way of background, we were discussing various censorship laws, and Chomsky explained:
...in Europe, there are severe restrictions on what you can write. If a book or article is published in England, it has to be vetted by lawyers to make sure that no problem is posed by England's utterly disgraceful libel laws, which are a severe infringement of freedom of speech. France is much worse. French intellectuals hardly even have a concept of freedom of speech, and material is often banned.
I know of a case in Sweden where a book was withdrawn by the one major left publisher because it challenged doctrines of fundamentalist religion among European intellectuals about their nobility in bombing Serbia.
In the third world there are plenty of cases of books banned, or material expunged in translations. If I'm asked (I'm often not), I refuse to allow the translation in that case, though I understand and often sympathize with the publishers.
Eventually, I told him a little bit about the various cases that appeared before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the cases that didn't make it to tribunal, but did get caught in the process anyways. Cases like Ezra Levant's decision to publish the Danish Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard, Reverend Stephen Boisson's anti-gay remarks in a letter-to-the-editor, and so on. I also quoted him, verbatim, section 13(1) of the CHRA. Here was his response:
I think it's outrageous, like the comparable European laws. It's also pure hypocrisy. If it were applied the media and journals would be shut down. They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?
I asked for clarification--just what did he mean by "They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?" And I also gave him the enumerated list of protected groups, all 11 of them, just to make sure that we were on the same page. It isn't like the CHRC is going to come down hard on you just because you're an "enemy of the state."
His response to my request for clarification:
The provision of law that you sent me referred to "persons," not just a person. Hence groups... There are also other mechanisms, like the devious argument used to ban Zundel on grounds of incitement of race hatred that made him a security threat.
The media and journals are constantly exposing Arabs to hatred and contempt. And that's been consistent practice for years with regard to enemies of the state.
...I'm more familiar with Britain, where the primary technique for silencing unwanted opinion, even putting a small newspaper out of business, is the disgraceful libel laws. If a book or article appears in the U.S., and then is going to be republished in England, it's necessary to get a battery of lawyers to review it to see if anything might be actionable. Some of the things they demand be removed are remarkable. I recall being asked to cut out a sentence saying that Henry Kissinger is guilty of war crimes, which is about as controversial as saying that grass is green.
UPDATE: Our own Robert Jago asked Chomsky about the CHRC back in February. Here's what Chomsky said then:
There should be a very heavy burden of proof on any effort to restrict freedom of speech. I strongly oppose the measures you describe. I do not think the burden of proof is even approached, let alone met. In this respect I agree with the US Supreme Court, which, in the 1960s, set what i think is a proper standard for protection of freedom of speech.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on October 28, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535bde2ff970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Noam Chomsky: Canadian Human Rights Commission is "outrageous":
Comments
Seems to me that Mr. Chomsky is either out of his depth or misinformed concerning the Zundel matter.
Per above: "...the devious argument used to ban Zundel on grounds of incitement of race hatred that made him a security threat...."
That's not correct at all. Zundel was deemed a security threat to Canada substantially because of his activism and support of white supremacist and neo-Nazi persons and organizations both in North America and in Europe. His hate publication industry was actually a separate matter. Much of the evidence substantiating the security threat was given in-camera to a Canadian judge, who then made his recommendations.
The specific information has never yet been released so as not to compromise Canadian Security methods and information sources.
I'm quite sure that Mr. Chomsky is no better informed concerning our Section 13 either.
Posted by: Harry Abrams | 2008-10-28 12:03:32 PM
Our friend Harry, who has used the thought crimes legislation to persecute others, seems upset that Chomsky is speaking out against such things. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-28 12:33:35 PM
Jaws:
Come on. Chomsky was being force-fed his lines. He knew nothing about the CHRA.
By the way, could you possibly interpret this?
"it challenged doctrines of fundamentalist religion among European intellectuals about their nobility in bombing Serbia. "
I admire NC, but it sounds suspiciously as though he was in his cups.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 12:58:57 PM
I always said Chomsky was a CIA false flag op designed to discredit the left;)
Posted by: Blazingcatfur | 2008-10-28 1:03:02 PM
Personally, I think he's the perfect nutroots' choice.
Too bad he kind of lost whatever respect I might have ever had for him after he wrote the forward to a Holocaust denial screed by an odious Frenchman named Faurisson. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_Affair
Posted by: Harry Abrams | 2008-10-28 1:19:04 PM
So... Chomsky's been blotto since February, when he first spoke to another Canadian blogger about the HRCs?
http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/noam-chomsky-on-the-steyn-and-levant-cases/
Wow, that tax free trust fund he set up, not to mention his hefty stock portfolio, must buy a lotta scotch.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a-18b71f2c4a44
Shorter Dawg: smart people who disagree with me must be drunk.
Go back to your search for those unmarked graves, Dawg.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2008-10-28 1:26:55 PM
Poor Kathy hasn't been keeping up. Too busy hawking her latest dismal vanity press effort, I guess.
Jago, too, is no stranger at handing famous folks their lines:
"A number of prominent right-wing Canadian authors are before my country’s various human rights tribunals and human rights commissions. One of those authors is Ezra Levant, who is charged with publishing the 'Muhammad Cartoons'. The other is Mark Steyn, charged with a number of offenses amongst them quoting a European Imam on demographic predictions.
"What is your opinion on these Human Rights Commissions and other government restrictions on 'hate speech'? Are you generally supportive of these types of measures, or do you oppose them?"
Chomsky, with nothing more to go on than that, says:
"There should be a very heavy burden of proof on any effort to restrict freedom of speech. I strongly oppose the measures you describe. I do not think the burden of proof is even approached, let alone met. In this respect I agree with the US Supreme Court, which, in the 1960s, set what i think is a proper standard for protection of freedom of speech."
Wow.
Years ago I confess I once played that game during an interview with the late Canadian poet Milton Acorn. I got him on the record supporting freedom of choice on abortion with precisely this crude technique. I'm heartily sorry I did so--reading my friend Jaws and the Jago fellow was like seeing myself in an accusing mirror.
I notice, however, how adroitly La Shaidle steered the conversation away from the line I quoted though. What the hell does it mean? Anyone?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 2:00:22 PM
The Globe and Mail story that Kathy missed may be found here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081027.wgraves27/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081027.wgraves27
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 2:03:28 PM
If any, Chomsky's remarks show that the U.S. is the odd man out when it comes to controlling hate speech. Lots O' Nazis down there too. Connection?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-10-28 2:05:42 PM
bigcity:
Finally, you're telling the truth.
There are many National Socialists along with pure Marxist Socialists cheering for Obama.
Barrack the Wealth Transferer being the leader of today's US version of totalitarian utopians.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-28 2:11:19 PM
Just in case you missed it, big city fascist:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Who said this, Marx? Gore? Suzuki? Layton? Obama? NO
--Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-28 2:15:48 PM
Actually, this:
"...the devious argument used to ban Zundel on grounds of incitement of race hatred that made him a security threat...."
is just a different way of saying this: "Zundel was deemed a security threat to Canada substantially because of his activism and support of white supremacist and neo-Nazi persons and organizations both in North America and in Europe. His hate publication industry was actually a separate matter. Much of the evidence substantiating the security threat was given in-camera to a Canadian judge, who then made his recommendations."
What are "activism and support of white supremacist and neo-Nazi persons and organizations" if not "incitement of race hatred"?
What no one has explained is why the state should have the authority to ban someone because that person holds odious & false views on race.
Posted by: M | 2008-10-28 2:16:40 PM
I love that "set you free," who is no doubt aware of Hitler's character, for some reason takes these particular words of his at face value -- as though Hitler were above misleading the public for his own gain!! What nonsense. Only a non-academic amateur could hold that "National Socialism" had anything whatsoever to do with socialism. Or that fascism in some way discredits all socialist models, even if it happened to appropriate some of them. Let's try it: under fascism, burglary was illegal! Therefore, laws against burglary are fascist! It's always nice when people grow up & realize that quoting Hitler on "socialism" is like quoting Bush on "democracy." State leaders pay lip service to all sorts of values they hold in contempt.
Posted by: m | 2008-10-28 2:20:04 PM
Set you free,
You verge on incoherence.
Shaidle,
Your book sucks monkeys. Did your lawyer tell you to make it boring to guard against libel charges, it did that just happen?
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-10-28 2:21:46 PM
Careful, BCL. She once discovered a typo in a piece by a journalist she didn't like, and she's still using that typo to "prove" that he's incompetent.
And here you say "it did that just happen."
So much for your political views, critical acumen, moral character and physical appearance.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 2:31:14 PM
big city:
Your political viewoint is already past the point of relevance in Canada.
The US will soon discover, much to their chagrin, that they are 40 years behind Canada's disastrous experiment with Trudeau's Just Society.
Canada's voters are intelligent enough to take a new direction. The US voter will soon discover that ‘change' does not always mean a change for the better.
Both Marxism and National Socialism are against capitalism, ie, the freedom of individuals to make their own competent decisions.
History has demonstrated time after time that big government cannot solve the challanges faced by all.
Nice try, though.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-28 3:23:01 PM
M:
"...What are "activism and support of white supremacist and neo-Nazi persons and organizations" if not "incitement of race hatred"?
What no one has explained is why the state should have the authority to ban someone because that person holds odious & false views on race...."
Please go back and re-read what I posted. Zundel's hate propaganda was a SEPARATE ISSUE from his activism / support for those types.
This COULD MEAN financial or strategic assistance, or help in acquiring weapons, smuggling or sheltering fugitives.
We won't know specifically until those National Security files are unsealed, which may be many years from now if ever.
Posted by: Harry Abrams | 2008-10-28 3:24:31 PM
BCL,
Actually, this is incoherent:
"Your book sucks monkeys. Did your lawyer tell you to make it boring to guard against libel charges, it did that just happen?"
Shouldn't you at least master the basic rules of punctuation and grammar before you blog?
Illiterate advocates of censorship. Only on Canada's left.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-10-28 3:25:24 PM
In light of the fact that the bulk of Jewish history is about resistance to tyranny and oppression (religious, political and economical) and the fight for freedom, it is shameful that we have some supporting tyranny and oppression through hate laws and so-called human rights commissions.
In a free society all citizens receive equal treatment before the law, not special treatment based on their colour, ethnic group, religion, sex or behaviour. The least of my concerns is the fantasy of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, especially as I do not recall a single incident of such mobs carrying out pogroms in Canada. I do however remain very concerned about the vile hatred and virulent anti-Semitism I find to-day in the Left camp, in particular those who have joined with the Islamo-fascists. Nevertheless I support freedom of speech and of the press, since it is healthier and better for views to be known in order to expose them for what they are.
As for Chomsky I see he is far more intelligent than our domestic lefties, since he understands exactly what hate laws and our HRCs are about even though he is about as far hard-Left as possible.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-28 3:26:17 PM
Chomsky is at least reasonably competent in his principle academic field, which is linguistics and the effect of media on mass culture.
But once he steps off that bus into legal issues around expression abuses, and especially remedial scenarios like Canada's HRC's, he hasn't the slightest clue.
It's a little weird when both the far left and the far right fall over themselves in a rush to sniff the last park bench he sat on, but who cares? He, Finkelstein and Farrakhan should go on tour together, with R.E. as their roadie. I wouldn't buy a ticket, but it would make me laugh.
Posted by: Harry Abrams | 2008-10-28 4:19:42 PM
Harry: "He, Finkelstein and Farrakhan should go on tour together, with R.E. as their roadie."
You seem bitter Harry. Maybe you should send another complaint to the HRC thought police.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-28 4:59:26 PM
Dr. Dawg,
"Come on. Chomsky was being force-fed his lines. He knew nothing about the CHRA."
So, like, does Chomsky regularly pontificate on things he has not studies?
"I admire NC, but it sounds suspiciously as though he was in his cups."
So, like, do you regularly admire people who pontificate on things they have not studied?
And on what else does he espouse his views, unknowingly?
What's to admire?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-28 5:05:34 PM
Well old Chomper is fine by me on this one, anyone who supports censorship is out to lunch.
Posted by: Blazingcatfur | 2008-10-28 5:06:02 PM
Oh my! But the book still stinks. And really the worst part is that its insipid. All the really nasty stuff's been cut out. I suppose because Shaidle's lawyer said get that actionable crap outta here!
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-10-28 5:11:46 PM
test
Posted by: Merle | 2008-10-28 5:22:12 PM
Chomsky wasn't pontificating--he was involved in a private email exchange.
I don't think he was fully informed on this issue. He tends to write books, not emails, when he is.
I'm still waiting for someone to hazard a guess about the meaning of this:
"it challenged doctrines of fundamentalist religion among European intellectuals about their nobility in bombing Serbia. "
I assume by everyone's silence that they are as mystified as I.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 5:31:20 PM
Well someone please hit me square in the head with a 2x4 please as I just dont get it.
I dont know if Warrens law suit vs Ezra has any merit or not- a judge I guess will decide that.
However to read of Ezra whining on his site and begging for money made me sick. How low and how hyprocritical can this man be?
Read this:
It’s a frivolous suit, but it will cost me money to defend against all the same. It’s a SLAPP suit – strategic litigation against public participation. The public participation is my criticism of Canada’s abusive human rights commissions. It’s the same reason why Kinsella filed two law society complaints against me, trying to get me disbarred."
Now know this gentle reader: Ezra Levant is still suing me for $100,000 for alleged defamation in a letter I wrote to FFWD here in Calgary.
This letter was of a matter of public interest i.e the closing of the WS and amtters concerning Ezra's managerial style.
I was employed at the WS from 2004-2006.
Richard Evans and others like to say " oh you have the right to fair comment etc etc.
Well thats all fine given we are close to one year in and still no trial and Ezra drags this on and one even after settling for an undisclosed amount with FFWD.
Do I not have the right to publish critical views of Ezra?
Is his suit not simply a SLAPP suit in order to stop that criticism?
So far all I hear is dribble from Libertarians and Conservative alike and its sickening.
HRC's baddd but suing Merle's ass off for a simple letter thats ok!!????
You all make excuses for your crusader Ezra and its BS!!!
No attacks on Ezra, but on all of you who stand by and watch this and say nothing!!!
Ezra says on his site:
"The Supreme Court recently strengthened the defence of fair comment enormously. But there is another part to a defamation trial: the value of the reputation of the plaintiff. Just how much is Kinsella’s reputation worth – and how badly was it hurt by my mild comment?"
Well how much is Ezra's rep worth I ask and what damage did my mild letter do?
Ezra still appears on Mike Duffy Live and was even invited to the Conservative war room during the election chaired by Jason Kenney.
Ezra as well as you all know is very controversial.
So did I really hurt his rep at all???? How could I in such a mild letter dear reader?
I too need help please as I approach Discoveries with Ezra in Dec 2008.
Please if you wish to donate to my legal fund please email me at merlet@shaw.ca and I will in confidence give you my address.
Sorry I am not equiped as Ezra is with pay pal.
Thank you.
As Ezra said:
"Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s beat him. Not just to get me out of the legal soup – but to show these bullies they can’t get away with it.
Let’s beat back these nuisance suits, let’s get these human rights commissions cut down to size, and let’s strengthen public discourse in Canada by rescuing it from the censorship bullies. If you can help me, please do"
I AGREE!!!
I ask you replace the reference to Warren in this case.
I intend to win this case for all free speech advocates and bloggers!!!!
You can find the staetment of claim of Ezra vs me on Kinsella's website as he decided to on his own to post it.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-10-28 5:39:24 PM
Sorry their were typos in the last post...I think I got them all.
Will someone please hit me square in the head with a 2x4 please as I just dont get it.
I dont know if Warrens law suit vs Ezra has any merit or not- a judge I guess will decide that.
However to read of Ezra whining on his site and begging for money made me sick. How low and how hyprocritical can this man be?
Read this:
"It’s a frivolous suit, but it will cost me money to defend against all the same. It’s a SLAPP suit – strategic litigation against public participation. The public participation is my criticism of Canada’s abusive human rights commissions. It’s the same reason why Kinsella filed two law society complaints against me, trying to get me disbarred."
Now know this gentle reader: Ezra Levant is still suing me for $100,000 for alleged defamation in a letter I wrote to FFWD here in Calgary.
This letter was of a matter of public interest i.e the closing of the WS and matters concerning Ezra's managerial style.
I was employed at the WS from 2004-2006.
Richard Evans and others like to say "oh you have the right to fair comment" etc etc.
Well thats all fine but we are close to one year in and still no trial and Ezra drags this on and on even after settling for an undisclosed amount with FFWD.
Do I not have the right to publish critical views of Ezra?
Is his suit not simply a SLAPP suit in order to stop that criticism?
So far all I hear is dribble from Libertarians and Conservative alike and its sickening.
HRC's bad but suing Merle's ass off for a simple letter thats ok!!????
You all make excuses for your crusader Ezra and its BS!!!
No attack on Ezra, but on all of you who stand by and watch this and say nothing!!!
Ezra says on his site:
"The Supreme Court recently strengthened the defence of fair comment enormously. But there is another part to a defamation trial: the value of the reputation of the plaintiff. Just how much is Kinsella’s reputation worth – and how badly was it hurt by my mild comment?"
Well how much is Ezra's rep worth I ask and what damage did my mild letter do?
Ezra still appears on Mike Duffy Live and was even invited to the Conservative war room during the election chaired by Jason Kenney.
Ezra as well as you all know is very controversial.
So did I really hurt his rep at all???? How could I in such a mild letter dear reader?
I too need help please as I approach Discoveries with Ezra in Dec 2008.
Please if you wish to donate to my legal fund please email me at merlet@shaw.ca and I will in confidence give you my address.
Sorry I am not equiped as Ezra is with pay pal.
Thank you.
As Ezra said:
"Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s beat him. Not just to get me out of the legal soup – but to show these bullies they can’t get away with it.
Let’s beat back these nuisance suits, let’s get these human rights commissions cut down to size, and let’s strengthen public discourse in Canada by rescuing it from the censorship bullies. If you can help me, please do"
I AGREE!!!
I ask you replace the reference to Warren in this case.
I intend to win this case for all free speech advocates and bloggers!!!!
You can find the staetment of claim of Ezra vs me on Kinsella's website as he decided to on his own to post it.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-10-28 5:43:25 PM
Dr. Dawg
"I'm still waiting for someone to hazard a guess about the meaning of this:
"it challenged doctrines of fundamentalist religion among European intellectuals about their nobility in bombing Serbia. "
I assume by everyone's silence that they are as mystified as I."
Stop changing the subject.
"Chomsky wasn't pontificating--he was involved in a private email exchange."
With the expectation that his views may be publicized.
Regardless of said expectations, he was still critical of a process about which, you suggest, he knows little.
Of course, I now see why you admire him.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-28 6:01:57 PM
"Stop changing the subject."
I raised this matter at the start. Put away your red herrings, troll--they're beginning to stink up the place.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 6:19:33 PM
Dr. Dawg,
"I raised this matter at the start. "
Who cares when YOU raised this subject. PMJ wrote the post for this thread and you are off topic. It ain't all about you.
"Put away your red herrings, troll--they're beginning to stink up the place."
Tsk tsk. Even further off topic.
Now, back to Chomsky's lack of knowledge on this subject. Do you think this represents a pattern for him?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-28 6:34:58 PM
RE wrote:
"..You seem bitter Harry. Maybe you should send another complaint to the HRC thought police...."
Don't mistake bitter for amused, my Dear.
Some of your gaffes can actually be quite entertaining.
Ken McVay an "official Jew."
That was priceless. What else have you got?
Posted by: Harry Abrams | 2008-10-28 6:39:58 PM
Dr. Dawg, you're quite the gadfly. You're not much of a debater, however; your posts are too heavily laden with unprovable e-wedgies and petulant happy slaps. Maybe running your own blog has made you powerful, in your mind, at least.
If you disagree with what Chomsky said, you have two options:
1. Show us where and how what he was wrong, rather than criticizing the process he used to get there; or
2. Zip it.
Blairian England has 4.5 million security cameras and ASBOs; we have section 13, the most insidious attack on freedom of expression since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan. They operate like a star chamber, beholden to few rules, finding against people on the most laughable evidence imaginable and openly rebuking those they disagree with even on the rare occasions when they don't rule against them. There are no rules of evidence and it basically comes down to whether you're white and/or Christian or not. Now either find facts tu support the continuation of this lamentable assault on personal liberty or go crawl back under your stone.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-28 6:41:36 PM
Terrence and Co. seem to inherited several trolls. Too bad--they run a classy joint.
No, Numbers and Letters, I don't think this is a pattern for Chomsky. He is pretty much a free speech absolutist, but he doesn't know much about the CHRA ("enemies of the state" and all that). Maybe he doesn't feel he has to.
Matthews: Took you long enough to get to whatever point you had. Chomsky is wrong that so-called "enemies of the state" are exposed by the media to "hatred or contempt" within the meaning of s. 13(1) of the CHRA. Just for starters.
Your ignorance of the process of CHRTs is simply risible. "No rules of evidence," etc. And this, especially, is a keeper:
"we have section 13, the most insidious attack on freedom of expression since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan."
Just makes the War Emergency Measures Act and security certificates pale into insignificance, doesn't it? What a maroon.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 7:06:19 PM
Dr. Dawg wrote: “1.Terrence and Co. seem to inherited several trolls. Too bad--they run a classy joint.”
1. “Seem to inherited”? I see we can add writing to the list of things you do poorly.
2. It’s clear you don’t think Chomsky is qualified to pontificate about the CHRA, but then again, what are your credentials? And how do you know what Chomsky does or does not know? Have you spoken to him?
3. That sentence was so badly written I have no idea what you were trying to say.
4. Double hearsay and triple hearsay admissible, truth no excuse, statute law no excuse, and a certain famous serial suit-filer who once served on its tribunal and investigated complaints he himself had filed and stood to benefit financially from. Just for starters.
5., 6. Yes, it does. Because the War Measures Act is imposed only when the threat to national security is grave; it is not the normal law of the land and has been invoked only once so far as I am aware, and then only briefly. Security certificates are applied to those who intelligence agencies have reasonable grounds to suspect are terrorist threats. Section 13 is the peacetime law of the land and applies to everyone in theory, but most especially to whites and Christians in practice.
Easy, boy. Throw out your Dasani bottles and boil your tap water and you’ll be fine.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-28 7:22:16 PM
Harry: "Ken McVay an "official Jew."
Are you misquoting me on purpose Harry? Maybe you should go back and re-read my original comments.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-28 7:38:26 PM
Matthews:
With you, it's the dilemma of the mosquito in the nudist camp.
1) "Seems to have inherited." My typing could indeed use improvement. Nothing, unfortunately, can be done about your intelligence.
2) I am going by what Chomsky wrote. He suggests that the MSM could be shut down because they expose "enemies of the state" to hatred or contempt. Not within the meaning of S. 13(1), they don't.
3) I don't know what sentence you are referring to. If it's the one I think, see (2).
4) The Tribunal process is a more relaxed one than that of a formal court. But the decisions of a Tribunal are broadly reviewable by a court. There is no privative clause in the legislation. Common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness apply.
5) The claim that Warman ever sat on a Human Rights Tribunal is ludicrously wrong. So is the claim that he somehow managed to file suits and then enter the wayback machine to adjudicate his own claims. Do you ever tell the truth?
6) Hundreds of people were rounded up in 1970 and jailed. Some people have been held without trial under security certificates for years. Your feeble excuses for this indicate perhaps more about your politics than you are aware.
Oh, the poor persecuted white Christian majority! You sound like David Duke. *Are* you David Duke? Or just a wannabe?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 7:43:58 PM
Here are some words of wisdom for Dawg and his fellow travellers from Venerable Master Hsing Yun, a Chinese Buddhist monk.
"Once upon a time Truth and Lies went bathing in the river. Lies got out of the water first and secretly put on the cloths of Truth. As Truth pleaded with Lies to return his cloths, Lies refused, no matter what Truth said. Truth had principles and ideals and refused to put on Lies' cloths. So Truth went home without a thread on his back. Since then people see Lies wearing the cloths of Truth and respect Lies, while the naked Truth is belittled. This is how the world has confused truth and lies.
In the end, truth is truth, and a lie is a lie. Lies may fool people sometimes but not always. Similarly, the truth may lose its appeal for the time being, but not for a lifetime. There are so many in the world who confuse the truth with lies. They can succeed for a moment but cannot fool people for long."
For all those supporting and promoting these kangaroo courts and seeking to use the state to impose their agenda on everyone else, there are many more of us who will resist to the end. You are free to express your opinions and views no matter how distorted or ridiculous, but you are not free to impose them on everyone else. The EU is a prime example of where this leads.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-28 7:44:15 PM
No one cares to address the issue I posted????
anyone???
Posted by: Merle | 2008-10-28 7:53:11 PM
Merle, this is a thread about HRC's and the examination of the voices in Dawggies head. Your comment would probably fit better in the most recent Warman thread.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-28 7:58:38 PM
where is that???
Posted by: Merle | 2008-10-28 8:10:59 PM
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/richard-warman.html
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-28 8:14:57 PM
I'm beginning to suspect that NAMBLA-Dick is a masochist. He certainly does seek out punishment. I've haven't seen so much bitch-slapping of one feeble-minded right-winger since the Couric interview with Palin.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-28 8:15:46 PM
Dr. Dawg wrote: “Matthews: With you, it's the dilemma of the mosquito in the nudist camp.”
You can run, asshole, but you can’t hide. :-)
1. Which was tested at 151 general IQ and 164 logical IQ. Let’s see your qualifications, Braniac. Or is your constant grating yapping bark intended to conceal a feeble bite?
2., 3. And by “enemies of the state,” he of course means the politically incorrect whose values constitute a threat to those deluded elites who believe that it is perfectly possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
4. “More relaxed” meaning “lower standards of proof,” “less beholden to precedent,” and being presided over by activist lawyers instead of bona fide judges. Where else could you get awarded $30,000 for refusing to hang poinsettias at Christmastime? Or rulings that downplay facts and overflow with loaded language like “injury to dignity”? Or a chief commissioner who denounces freedom of speech as “an American import,” and therefore un-Canadian?
5. If it is, then several prominent people, among them Liberal MP Keith Martin, are lying. Or else a pompous, self-glorifying gadfly is lying. And then there was that unfortunate business where the tribunal hijacked an innocent citizen’s computer to post hate speech on the Internet in an attempt to drum up business for itself…
6. In 1970, bombs were exploding in our cities and prominent people were being kidnapped and shot execution-style by radical groups. What’s the threat today, smart mouth? Hurt feelers? As for the David Duke bit—either explain how or why my assertions or wrong, or put a sock in it. Your mouth would probably welcome having something in it besides your foot.
Bzzz-zzzz-zzz…WHACK! Screeched the gadfly.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-28 8:22:14 PM
Dr. Dawg wrote: "I'm beginning to suspect that NAMBLA-Dick is a masochist. He certainly does seek out punishment. I've haven't seen so much bitch-slapping of one feeble-minded right-winger since the Couric interview with Palin."
Where's my flyswatter?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-28 8:26:21 PM
Dawgy wrote:
"..I'm beginning to suspect that NAMBLA-Dick is a masochist. He certainly does seek out punishment. I've haven't seen so much bitch-slapping of one feeble-minded right-winger since the Couric interview with Palin...."
Ooooh that's got to hurt.
I would appreciate it if you laid off the Sarah Palin jokes at least long enough to let me finish my Halloween costume, Mr. Dawg.
Posted by: Harry Abrams | 2008-10-28 8:35:24 PM
Harry: "Ooooh that's got to hurt."
Not really. The Dawggie's a bit of a spaz and his comments really don't mean much in the big scheme of things.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-28 9:06:00 PM
With Evans and Matthews posting , I think this threaad has reached a critical mass of of misinformation, bluster and bullshit. If Ezra were to pay a visit to his old stomping grounds and post some of his deep thoughts and bald-faced lies, this site would be in danger of turning into a black hole, taking the whole internet down with it.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-10-28 9:09:29 PM
Cut the crap, Truewest. Your slavish defence of this morally and legally bankrupt travesty in the face of justice, decency, and a thousand years of legal evolution has resulted in your credibility taking more hits than the stock market. It's practically the only thing you ever post about. Like I said to that Dawg who's lowah than a snake fulla buckshot: Either show how or where I'm wrong, or get your ass back underneath Barbara Hall's desk where it belongs.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-28 11:20:41 PM
"I don't think this is a pattern for Chomsky. He is pretty much a free speech absolutist, ..."
Dr. Dawg,
may I remind you of something you posted last week?
"1) The Speech Warriors are, to a person, on the right, and usually the far right, of the political spectrum;
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 24-Oct-08 6:33:33 AM"
Is Chomsky aware that you consider him a right-wing speech warrior absolutist?
Consistency isn't your strong point, is it?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-29 6:20:54 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.